No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Social-motor experience and perception-action learning bring efficiency to machines
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2017
Abstract
Lake et al. proposed a way to build machines that learn as fast as people do. This can be possible only if machines follow the human processes: the perception-action loop. People perceive and act to understand new objects or to promote specific behavior to their partners. In return, the object/person provides information that induces another reaction, and so on.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
Ansermin, E., Mostafaoui, G., Beausse, N. & Gaussier, P. (2016). Learning to synchronously imitate gestures using entrainment effect. In: From Animals to Animats 14: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB 2016), Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, August 23–26, 2016, ed. Tuci, E, Giagkos, A, Wilson, M, Hallam, J, pp. 219–31. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braud, R., Mostafaoui, G., Karaouzene, A. & Gaussier, P. (2014). Simulating the emergence of early physical and social interactions: A developmental route through low level visuomotor learning. In: From Animal to Animats 13: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, Castellon, Spain, July 2014, ed. del Pobil, A. P., Chinalleto, E., Martinez-Martin, E., Hallam, J., Cervera, E. & Morales, A., pp. 154–65. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breazeal, C. & Scassellati, B. (2002). Robots that imitate humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences
6(11):481–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaussier, P., Moga, S., Quoy, M. & Banquet, J. P. (1998). From perception-action loops to imitation processes: A bottom-up approach of learning by imitation. Applied Artificial Intelligence
12(7–8):701–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasnain, S.K., Mostafaoui, G. & Gaussier, P. (2012). A synchrony-based perspective for partner selection and attentional mechanism in human-robot interaction. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics
3(3):156–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasnain, S. K., Mostafaoui, G., Salesse, R., Marin, L. & Gaussier, P. (2013) Intuitive human robot interaction based on unintentional synchrony: A psycho-experimental study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd Joint Conference on Development and Learning and on Epigenetic Robotics, Osaka, Japan, August 2013, pp. 1–7. Hal Archives-ouvertes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, M. & Santos-Victor, J. (2007). A developmental roadmap for learning by imitation in robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics
37(2):308–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marin, L., Issartel, J. & Chaminade, T. (2009). Interpersonal motor coordination: From human-human to human-robot interactions. Interaction Studies
10(3):479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). ‘Like me': A foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science
10(1):126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagai, Y., Kawai, Y. & Asada, M. (2011). Emergence of mirror neuron system: Immature vision leads to self-other correspondence. Proceedings of the 1st Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and on Epigenetic Robotics, Vol. 2, pp. 1–6. IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Regan, J.K. (2011). Why red doesn't sound like a bell: Understanding the feel of consciousness. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.C. & Richardson, M.J. (2008). Dynamics of interpersonal coordination. In: Coordination: Neural, behavioural and social dynamics, ed. Fuchs, A. & Jirsa, V., pp. 281–307. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varlet, M., Marin, L., Capdevielle, D., Del-Monte, J., Schmidt, R.C., Salesse, R.N., Boulenger, J.-P., Bardy, B. & Raffard, S. (2014). Difficulty leading interpersonal coordination: Towards an embodied signature of social anxiety disorder. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
8:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viviani, P. & Stucchi, N. (1992). Biological movements look uniform: evidence of motor-perceptual interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception & Performance
18(3):603–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Target article
Building machines that learn and think like people
Related commentaries (27)
Autonomous development and learning in artificial intelligence and robotics: Scaling up deep learning to human-like learning
Avoiding frostbite: It helps to learn from others
Back to the future: The return of cognitive functionalism
Benefits of embodiment
Building brains that communicate like machines
Building machines that adapt and compute like brains
Building machines that learn and think for themselves
Building on prior knowledge without building it in
Causal generative models are just a start
Children begin with the same start-up software, but their software updates are cultural
Crossmodal lifelong learning in hybrid neural embodied architectures
Deep-learning networks and the functional architecture of executive control
Digging deeper on “deep” learning: A computational ecology approach
Evidence from machines that learn and think like people
Human-like machines: Transparency and comprehensibility
Intelligent machines and human minds
Social-motor experience and perception-action learning bring efficiency to machines
The architecture challenge: Future artificial-intelligence systems will require sophisticated architectures, and knowledge of the brain might guide their construction
The argument for single-purpose robots
The fork in the road
The humanness of artificial non-normative personalities
The importance of motivation and emotion for explaining human cognition
Theories or fragments?
Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
Understand the cogs to understand cognition
What can the brain teach us about building artificial intelligence?
Will human-like machines make human-like mistakes?
Author response
Ingredients of intelligence: From classic debates to an engineering roadmap